June 30, 2004
Chirac and Afghanistan
Yesterday there was much talk across the blogosphere about Chirac and Bush’s public exchange of words regarding Turkey and the EU. But Chirac did something far more damaging than that. He has blocked the deployment of NATO troops to safeguard the elections in Afghanistan. (Rueters cite):
France has blocked a U.S. bid to deploy NATO's new strike force to safeguard Afghanistan's elections, stoking tension between the two allies that fell out over the Iraq war, diplomats said Tuesday.
"France, and to a lesser extent others such as Spain, are suspicious about using the NATO Response Force (NRF)," said one envoy at the alliance summit in Istanbul.
"It says the force is not ready for this kind of environment and should not be used simply as a sticking plaster for troop shortages on routine operations."
France's opposition to a proposal that could help resolve NATO's problems finding troops to make the September polls safe exasperated Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who pushed the idea hard at a meeting of allied defense ministers.
...
Chirac told a news conference that the NRF -- set up last year with a heavy French contingent but not due to become fully operational until October 2006 -- should only be used when there is a serious security crisis, not for Afghan-style missions.
"The NRF is not designed for this. It shouldn't be used just for any old matter," he said. He has added that an overt NATO presence in Afghanistan could in itself exacerbate security problems during the elections.
...
Diplomats said allies had not yet committed all those forces. This means they will not be in place to help with voter registration, which has been dogged by Taliban militia attacks.
...
France's excuse is
One European official said the U.S.-French tussle was more about procedure. Paris is concerned that sending the NRF to Afghanistan could set a precedent for using it as a "toolbox" whenever NATO has problems pooling forces for an operation.
"France worries ... (this) would lead to an automatism jeopardizing the principle that a political decision must be taken before NATO commits to operations such as election protection in Afghanistan," the official said.
This article highlights the fact that there really aren't very many non-US NATO troops available. A fact which ought to be remembered when engaging in debates about how important a European contribution to the War on Terrorism could be. But more importantly it highlights how little of a contribution Europe (and especially France) is willing to make when contributing involves more than diplomatic rhetoric.
The mission was to deploy troops in Afghanistan to safeguard elections. According to European rhetoric, Afghanistan is one of the most important foreign fronts in the War on Terrorism. To dismiss the safeguarding of Afghanistan's elections as "any old matter" is ridiculous. If the War on Terrorism is going to be won at all it will include changing the way that governments in the region interact with their citizens. This is not a mere procedural objection to the way the US raised the issue. This when coupled with "overt NATO presence in Afghanistan could in itself exacerbate security problems during the elections" is a challenge to the idea of many possible roles for NATO in Afghanistan.
And I repeat, this is how France wants to treat AFGHANISTAN. This is how France wants to deal with the clear case.
UPDATE:
Wretchard at the Belmont Club has much more on this topic and other European commitment problems in his June 30, 2004 entry.
Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw at June 30, 2004 11:58 AMSabatian,
I am a bit confused, I thought that France had removed themselves from nato quite few years ago? Also I think that france is simply doing what it knows is in its own best interest. They have no obligation to help the world encourage democracy or even the slightest obligation to its 200+ year fellowship the the US. It might be a kick in the pants to see what was once your best freind find new friends. But the reality of int’l relations is that every successful coolition is doomed to fail once it is successful. So it is only fitting that we bid adeu to the long and successful Franco-American (not the pasta company) must come appart. This is not to say that France and the US are going to war or anything crazy, but to expect their aid on anything is naive. We have not been allies with them for a long time. A year or two after the Liberation of France, DeGaul asked Eisenhower to get the american troops out of his coutry. Ike quickly retorted: It will take a while to dig them up.
Posted by: Publius at July 1, 2004 01:30 AMSebastian let me get this straight: You’re in favor of deploying a small, untrained, non-operational military unit to what will likely be a combat zone?
As to your assertion that “there really aren’t very many non-US NATO troops available,” I don’t think you understand how NATO requisitions troops from its member nations.
Also, it may surprise you to know that NATO currently has committed 10,000 troops to Afghanistan - about the same number of troops that we’ve committed. This is from a recent NATO update:
Heads of State and Government also made commitments to deploy extra NATO forces at the time of the upcoming elections in order to support the process.Each ISAF-led PRT will be temporarily reinforced by an additional infantry company (about 100 extra troops). In addition, NATO will deploy a quick reaction force of up to 1,000 troops. Further troops will be put on high readiness to move into theatre if required.
To ensure a successful election, you could argue that it would be better to flood Afghanistan with US and NATO troops, but for right now you might just want to ask Bush to cease diverting aid, cash, and troops earmarked for Afghanistan, to Iraq.
France is a part of NATO again. Actually I don’t think they ever really left except for the direct military command.
American Pundit, I suspect you didn’t read my whole post because Chirac’s statement is reported as follows: “He has added that an overt NATO presence in Afghanistan could in itself exacerbate security problems during the elections.”
Furthermore, we have seen repeatedly with Afghanistan that ‘commitments’ often fully deserve my scare quotes.
See also:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/108860991797.htm
Sebastian this is such an important post, proving that the whole ‘unilateral’ argument is a distortion and one sided characterization.
It’s not surprising actually. I came across this news item yesterday as I was waiting for watchblog to come back on line. “Three-nation alliance trampled by ‘rogue elephant’ Chirac”
It seems to me that Bush has been used as a straw man to cover Chirac’s attempt to gain more power.
Ministers believe President Chirac has become impossible to work with, and one government source described him as a “rogue elephant”. The strategy of “trilateralism” has now given way to limited ad hoc co-operation on specific issues.…The UK believes M. Chirac is lashing out from a position of weakness and is playing to a domestic audience.
The Government sees the appointment of Mr Barroso as an important turning point because it proved the French and Germans could not push through their choice of Commission president. The end of trilateralism will come as a relief to many smaller European nations, which feared the three most powerful countries in the EU would set up a directoire.
Posted by: Eric Simonson at July 2, 2004 05:24 PM
So, Sebastian, I guess you are advocating sending a non-operational military unit to a combat zone.
American Pundit, I suspect you didn’t read my whole post because Chirac’s statement is reported as follows: “He has added that an overt NATO presence in Afghanistan could in itself exacerbate security problems during the elections.”
That’s a big “duh”. Which part of that statement don’t you agree with?
According to your article, Chirac’s problem is more about the fact that the NRF isn’t ready to be deployed (presumably, as a NATO member, Bush knew that already), and the fact that there are some procedural problems with deploying the force - when it’s operational - in the manner Bush asked for.
“France worries … (this) would lead to an automatism jeopardizing the principle that a political decision must be taken before NATO commits to operations such as election protection in Afghanistan,” the official said.
Or do you also have a problem with making sure a political decision is made before deploying NATO forces?
Let me clue you in. NATO has been led by US presidents since its inception. Even in the post-cold war, Bush Sr. knew how to work it. Clinton made NATO stand up and beg. Now, just because Junior can’t even lead himself to the bathroom, much less lead an international organization like NATO or the UN, you guys try to blame it on the French. You’re killin’ me.
